SDI vs PADI

[Thalassamania]

Except that I did say that within the groups, the individual instructor is the key element. Most people who are trying to choose agencies are looking at only choices within the first group.

Sure, within agency (or group of similar agencies, if you will) choices of this instructor vs that one, may be key. But the difference between the groups more than swamps the style differences within a group, complicated by the fact that a NAUI course (for example) may be almost identical to a PADI one, or may be a 100 hour university program.

 

[Kingpatzer]

NAUI isn't part of the RSTC either.

True - though I'm not saying membership is a requirement for a course to be worthwhile. I don't think CMAS is a member either. Rather, I'm pointing out (or trying to) that those agencies which represent the training opportunities within the financial and geographic grasp of hte most people have very similar standards.

NAUI, for example, really only differs from PADI in terms of content around the Master Diver course (which is very worthwhile for anyone interested in furthering their diving education and something I recommend to PADI divers interested in "master diver.")

Your implication demonstrates a severe lack of familiarity with other agencies.
Let's not consider them, after all if they were any good they'd have a greater presence. Face it Rolls Royce and Ferrari can't possibley make good cars ... if they did they'd have more presence. The same goes for Chez Panisse, if the food were any good or where healthy, they'd be on every corner ... like McDonads.

No, Rolls Royce makes a great car -- that is out of reach of the vast majority of the driving public. Saying there great is of course true. Saying they should be the car people should all try to own is beyond unrealistic.

Not to read Harry Potter, but to make sense of some of the most important literature in the Enlish language such as:
'Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorweI knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,'Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon oother moThat wedded been."
it might help to be able to read above the 8th grade level

But not everyone needs or wants to be able to read the Canterbury Tales in the original. To suggest that everyone should be equipped to is akin to suggesting everyone should get a medical degree so they can put band aides on their kid's skinned knees.

 

[Blackwood]

No, Rolls Royce makes a great car -- that is out of reach of the vast majority of the driving public. Saying there great is of course true. Saying they should be the car people should all try to own is beyond unrealistic.

This is the kind of pessimism that will keep our economy in the trash, not to mention the mediocrity in dive training.

It's beyond realistic to expect that [all] people WILL own a Rolls or a Ferrari (/dreamcar). However, everyone should try to achieve their dreams.

 

[Kingpatzer]

This is the kind of pessimism that will keep our economy in the trash, not to mention the mediocrity in dive training.

It's beyond realistic to expect that [all] people WILL own a Rolls or a Ferrari (/dreamcar). However, everyone should try to achieve their dreams.

Should people not own cars until they can own their dream car?
Should all people have the same dream car?
Is someone who is happy with a perfectly serviceable 10 year old Chevy wrong?

The high end is great, but the average diver is not interested in being a high end diver. The average diver is interested in spending a few hours under water during a vacation. Maybe they'll do it again once or twice in their life. That's it.

If we really want to extend the idea that the readily available agencies are insufficient because other agencies have harsher standards, shouldn't we condemn all agencies except which ever organization (be it professional or non) has the absolutely most stringent and difficult standards?

 

[Arizona_SVO]

I am loving this....

Original English literature, High-end automobiles, all we need now is some rock-and-roll and a supermodel or two and this thread has it ALL.

Bring on the next post!

 

[Blackwood]

The high end is great, but the average diver is not interested in being a high end diver. The average diver is interested in spending a few hours under water during a vacation. Maybe they'll do it again once or twice in their life. That's it.

If [the proverbial] you are interested in becoming a mediocre diver who is somewhat safe under supervision, I guess the standard 'certification mill' type of course may be for you, but I don't see why you don't just do discover SCUBA courses. If you aren't going to be a safe, independent diver, don't go for full OW.

It is unfortunate that those of us who wish to dive regularly throughout the year have to go beyond average training in order to get what's advertised.

If we really want to extend the idea that the readily available agencies are insufficient because other agencies have harsher standards, shouldn't we condemn all agencies except which ever organization (be it professional or non) has the absolutely most stringent and difficult standards?

The suggestion wasn't that "the readily available agencies" aren't good because others are better. They are independent of eachother. Some offer good training, some offer marginal training (standards).

BTW, I'm not sure I'd agree with your idea of "the readily available agencies." As far as I know, I don't have easy access to SSI, SDI, or CMAS, but I do have easy access to PADI, NAUI, UTD, GUE, IANTD, and TDI.

 

[Kingpatzer]

If [the proverbial] you are interested in becoming a mediocre diver who is somewhat safe under supervision, I guess the standard 'certification mill' type of course may be for you, but I don't see why you don't just do discover SCUBA courses. If you aren't going to be a safe, independent diver, don't go for full OW.

But that is an issue of instruction not of standards. The standards don't dictate quick courses breezing through material to toss students into the water as quickly as possible at a bargain price -- the market for the recreational diver does.

Which is why instructors are more important than agencies when talking about quality of instruction received by any individual person. Large players in the market are large because they are meeting the market demand. The market demand is for inexpensive and fast instruction.

I know for myself, when I decided to become certified, all I knew about SCUBA diving was what I'd seen on TV. I called up the various shops around me (my first consideration, there are 3 PADI shops and one NAUI shop in driving distance), and I asked two questions "how long" and "how much." I had no reason to suspect that the quality of the course would differ because I had no knowledge of the intricacies of agency certification, or the differences between agencies.

I am not unique. Those are the questions most people ask most shops.

PADI vs. SDI vs NAUI vs whatever isn't an issue of one set of standards being better than another as the standards are essentially identical.

It may be an issue of which portion of the market those individual organizations are trying to capture by how rigorously they (in general) meet those standards - but even that varies by local market conditions.

Courses taught in resort towns, for example, are simply going to be less rigorous than courses taught in non-resort areas (again, in general) because the resort market consists of people looking to get into the water during their vacation as quickly as possible. They aren't interested in taking their whole trip up with instruction, they are interested in getting into the water and diving.

As to why people don't take 'discover scuba' courses instead of OW courses? That is basically two factors. The first is economic - the shops are interested in selling the most profitable service. The second is psychological - people want to feel they are special in some way, and given the choice between certifications that otherwise meet other requirements, they will take the one they perceive as more prestigious.

It is unfortunate that those of us who wish to dive regularly throughout the year have to go beyond average training in order to get what's advertised.

I'm not sure that we don't get what is advertised. My local PADI shop, for example, advertises that OW training will teach a person to: Plan, conduct and log open water no stop (no decompression) dives when equipped properly and accompanied by a buddy in conditions which you have training and or experience.

It is not advertised that the person will be an experienced diver capable of handling any conditions and dealing with any potential situation with out even thinking twice about it.

The suggestion wasn't that "the readily available agencies" aren't good because others are better. They are independent of eachother. Some offer good training, some offer marginal training (standards).

BTW, I'm not sure I'd agree with your idea of "the readily available agencies." As far as I know, I don't have easy access to SSI, SDI, or CMAS, but I do have easy access to PADI, NAUI, UTD, GUE, IANTD, and TDI.

Well, when it comes to minimum standards quite a few are not (fully) independent of each other, which is why there are many reciprocal agreements of certification recognition between them.

And when it comes to the diving population, UTD, GUE, IANTD and TDI are not major players in the recreational market. They just aren't. Market share is more or less an objectively definable thing. The vast, vast majority of the market is served by a very few agencies.

And those smaller players will probably never be large presences in the average recreational diver market precisely because the higher standards they set preclude them from filling the market space that folks like PADI, SDI, NAUI and others fill.

Even those organizations suddenly increased their instructor presence in the world 1,000 fold, they still could not meet the market demand -- anymore than Rolls Royce can put a car in every driveway even should they be able to find enough craftsmen to up their production to that level. The economics just don't support it.

"Good enough" will always win the volume war for a service market.

 

[Blackwood]

But that is an issue of instruction not of standards.

That's arguably untrue. Look at the Scripps model, which calls for a minimum instruction time. Other agencies dictate minimum standards that most people wouldn't be able to meet with two weekends worth of instruction.

I know for myself, when I decided to become certified, all I knew about SCUBA diving was what I'd seen on TV. I called up the various shops around me (my first consideration, there are 3 PADI shops and one NAUI shop in driving distance), and I asked two questions "how long" and "how much." I had no reason to suspect that the quality of the course would differ because I had no knowledge of the intricacies of agency certification, or the differences between agencies.

Same here, and probably for most divers. Like anything, you don't know what you don't know.

I'm not sure that we don't get what is advertised. My local PADI shop, for example, advertises that OW training will teach a person to: Plan, conduct and log open water no stop (no decompression) dives when equipped properly and accompanied by a buddy in conditions which you have training and or experience.

It is not advertised that the person will be an experienced diver capable of handling any conditions and dealing with any potential situation with out even thinking twice about it.

After fully satisfying my instructor's standards and passing OW, I did not feel safe diving without supervision. Nor do many people, hence the common "jump right into AOW so you can log some more dives with an instructor" syndrome. Personally, I didn't do that. I dove with a buddy from my OW class anyway. But in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have.

I, like most divers, was safe as long as nothing went wrong. I find the average training out there to be designed with the calculated risk that - most of the time - nothing goes wrong. But if it does, I would have been up a creek.

And when it comes to the diving population, UTD, GUE, IANTD and TDI are not major players in the recreational market. They just aren't. Market share is more or less an objectively definable thing. The vast, vast majority of the market is served by a very few agencies.

Many shops that offer training through the big two (or three) also offer training through other agencies (unless they've bent under PADI's marketing arm). While most people elect to go with PADI (hence their market share), I don't think you can use that to say that the smaller agencies are inaccessible.

 

[iztok]

If [the proverbial] you are interested in becoming a mediocre diver who is somewhat safe under supervision, I guess the standard 'certification mill' type of course may be for you, but I don't see why you don't just do discover SCUBA courses. If you aren't going to be a safe, independent diver, don't go for full OW.

I think a lot of the thing is in the name vs. what is the intent. So Advanced OW should be named differently. But to be honest this is a minor problem in my opinion. As long as it is clear that even AOW cert only gives you little more tools to learn then OW and gives you a few more dives under supervision of an instructor then OW. For me I would rather make additional dives under supervision of an instructor then just another diver.

As far as "independent diver" part is concerned. Most of the recreational agencies teach a buddy system and discourage independent diving.

From what I get is that OW, AOW, MD (in PADI terms) are just recreational levels that each brings some additional experience. They mean you've been instructed in certain types of dives and have a bit more supervised practice when you go dive with a non-professional buddy.

 

[Kingpatzer]

I, like most divers, was safe as long as nothing went wrong. I find the average training out there to be designed with the calculated risk that - most of the time - nothing goes wrong. But if it does, I would have been up a creek.

But isn't the risk calculus exactly what tells us if a set of standards as implemented is sufficient?

Is there any objective evidence that scuba diving is more risky today than it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago?

Is there any objective evidence that scuba divers trained under one set of standards are at greater risk than those trained under another set of standards when diving in recreational limits?

My understanding is that studies have been done on both of those questions and the answers are that we are reducing risk across the board, especially among recreational divers, and that the differences between agencies with respect to safety in the recreational dive population is inconclusive.